Talk:Tooth decay

Unnecessary mass of references in the lead

We current have this one sentence "Caries are also associated with poverty, poor cleaning of the mouth, and receding gums resulting in exposure of the roots of the teeth." supported by 7 refs when all that was needed was two.

• This is a literature review from 2014
• This is a meta analysis from 2015

We do not need these 5

• Review but we have a newer one
• A systematic review but we have a newer one
• Primary source
• This is a primary source

References

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Remineralization - reversal of dental caries.

In the intro, we currently say: "There is no known method to grow back large amounts of tooth." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4226000/ however, says "They have developed a patented technology for the regeneration of enamel. The monomers of peptide p11-4 (curodont) forms a matrix [that] enables de novo enamel crystal formation from saliva in constant equilibrium with demineralization [19]. In vivo studies revealed that the peptides were shown to decrease demineralization and show a strong trend toward increasing remineralization [20]." (and mentions other progress on tooth regeneration) So while I doubt we have the MEDRS sources to put "There is a known method to grow back very significant amounts of tooth." in the intro, I do think the intro needs some editing in light of this development.

We should have a bit more data in Dec 2016 and Dec 2017. A very promising clinical safety trial is too preliminary.--Elvey^(t•c) 21:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

selective excavation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25511906 suggests selective excavation is best practice, so I think the first sentence of the following needs revision; it conflicts with the second one: "Before a restoration can be placed, all of the decay must be removed otherwise it will continue to progress underneath the filling. Sometimes a small amount of decay can be left if it is entombed and the there is a seal which isolates the bacteria from their substrate."--Elvey^(t•c) 21:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Elvey agree should be mentioned if not already. the technique you refer to is called stepwise caries removal or indirect pulp cap. Pulp_capping#Indirect_pulp_cap (stepwise_caries_removal). Matthew Ferguson (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Other prevention

@Johngorman101: thank you for adding the content about other types of prevention. @Doc James: thank you for adding the page number. I tweaked the reference to include both page 6-7 since the content is covered on both pages. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes see it. Have adjusted the text to better match. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

We need to know more about Resin Infiltration for Proximal Caries!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=proximal+caries+infiltration

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26545080

88.192.242.201 (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree... Sofixit! Simply posting links to what you think are potentially useful and reliable sources isn't quite as good as adding them to the article and adjusting the text accordingly! Wikipedia is something anyone can edit, including you. Seize the day! KDS4444 (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC about article's lead image

Should we use a photograph or a diagram for the article's lead image? KDS4444 (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternative lead image

Current lead image

Background: the article currently has a photograph of a severely decayed tooth. There is no question as to this photo's accuracy-- nevertheless, it is a somewhat shocking visual. We also have an SVG diagram of a tooth suffering from decay which we might use as the lead image. The diagram conveys the same basic concept (tooth decay), has less shock value, and is also labeled with parts of the tooth and types of cavities. Either image is suitable, of course, but I feel the diagram has greater encyclopedic value; others disagree. Please share your comments. Thank you. KDS4444 (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Diagram. A diagram is much more clear and concise and a simple photo does not represent what is actually going on within the tooth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyman99 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
• Diagram per both above. Without getting into any kind of WP:CENSORED/WP:GRATUITOUS kerfuffle, the diagram is far more informative about different kinds of decay, relevant anatomy, etc—all absent from the photo, or only visible to specialists. Furthermore, MOS:LEADIMAGE recommends pictures with lower shock value even if both were equally informative. FourViolas (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• The diagram is far superior when it comes to actually illustrating the subject. I'm not even sure a non-professional would recognize the photograph as a tooth if given only a quick glance—it has a sort of odd angle to it. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• Picture You can barely tell what the diagram is at normal size and therefore the diagram is not informative at all. The tooth we are looking at is moderately decayed. It quickly orientates the reader to what the article is about while the diagram requires study to figure out what it is about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Picture, with the diagram included elsewhere in the article - The picture clearly depicts a dental caries; the diagram depicts multiple caries, but not clearly so; it is not immediately apparent to the reader which part of the diagram is the article subject. The diagram also suffers from not including the article title in any of the captioning text. NOTE: Changes to the diagram text would not be sufficient to change this !vote. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• picture per the reason of Ryk72, the diagram could go elsewhere (the picture is far superior...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)